Contextual errors and failures in individualizing patient care: a multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: A contextual error occurs when a physician overlooks elements of a patient's environment or behavior that are essential to planning appropriate care. In contrast to biomedical errors, which are not patient-specific, contextual errors represent a failure to individualize care. OBJECTIVE: To explore the frequency and circumstances under which physicians probe contextual and biomedical red flags and avoid treatment error by incorporating what they learn from these probes. DESIGN: An incomplete randomized block design in which unannounced, standardized patients visited 111 internal medicine attending physicians between April 2007 and April 2009 and presented variants of 4 scenarios. In all scenarios, patients presented both a contextual and a biomedical red flag. Responses to probing about flags varied in whether they revealed an underlying complicating biomedical or contextual factor (or both) that would lead to errors in management if overlooked. SETTING: 14 practices, including 2 academic clinics, 2 community-based primary care networks with multiple sites, a core safety net provider, and 3 U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs facilities. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were the proportion of visits in which physicians probed for contextual and biomedical factors in response to hints or red flags and the proportion of visits that resulted in error-free treatment plans. RESULTS: Physicians probed fewer contextual red flags (51%) than biomedical red flags (63%). Probing for contextual or biomedical information in response to red flags was usually necessary but not sufficient for an error-free plan of care. Physicians provided error-free care in 73% of the uncomplicated encounters, 38% of the biomedically complicated encounters, 22% of the contextually complicated encounters, and 9% of the combined biomedically and contextually complicated encounters. LIMITATIONS: Only 4 case scenarios were used. The study assessed physicians' propensity to make errors when every encounter provided an opportunity to do so and did not measure actual error rates that occur in primary care settings because of inattention to context. CONCLUSION: Inattention to contextual information, such as a patient's transportation needs, economic situation, or caretaker responsibilities, can lead to contextual error, which is not currently measured in assessments of physician performance. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Health Services Research and Development Service

Managing the unmanaged: a case study of intra-institutional determinants of uncompensated care at healthcare institutions with differing ownership models.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study presents a case analysis of how 3 urban medical centers with differing ownership models, within 1 metropolitan area, ration access to uncompensated care to uninsured patients. METHODS: Data was triangulated from 3 sources: hospital financial reports by service line for a fiscal year, a survey of 292 self-pay patients, and the self-pay policies and practices of clerical personnel described in a previous publication. RESULTS: Although the public, for-profit and not-for-profit institutions used different strategies for managing self-pays, there were also commonalities in the experiences indigent patients reported. The public institution provided the broadest access to the largest percentage of self-pay patients but offset the burden with the most successful prepayment and collection practices. The for-profit site obeyed federal regulations mandating emergency care but severely curtailed other services, and the not-for-profit limited assess (but not to the extent of the for-profit) and pursued collection (but not to the extent of the public). At all sites, actual practices by clerical staff often diverged from institutions' written self-pay policies. The probability of being turned away because of inability to pay ranged from 0% to 40% with front line personnel exercising considerable discretion on a case-by-case basis. CONCLUSIONS: Large institutional providers balance their particular social and legal obligations with strategies to limit access and optimize prepayment and collection. Stated policies generally do not reflect the practices of personnel. Uninsured patients are forced to navigate a capricious system that manages them as a liability rather than as a legitimate client.

A model of medical error based on a model of disease: interactions between adverse events, failures, and their errors.

This article discusses Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center's approach to assessing and preventing errors in care and promoting patient safety. The word error is applied to all kinds of events, including adverse occurrences, negligence, and malpractice. Thus confusion exists among those analyzing the causes of adverse events. A patient safety committee standardized the definition of medical error and developed a taxonomy for error as a prelude to efforts at error reduction. It identified three levels or layers that can represent a train of events culminating in an undesired outcome: error, treatment failure, and adverse event. This discussion is offered in the interest of clarifying some of the issues.

Avoiding free care at all costs: a survey of uninsured patients choosing not to seek emergency services at an urban county hospital.

The purpose of this case study was to understand why many uninsured patients opt not to make use of a free public hospital when it is available, instead seeking emergency department care at sites where they will be billed for the services they receive. One hundred fifty seven uninsured patients were interviewed over an 8-week period at three emergency departments that bill for services near a county hospital that provides free care. Data was gathered on income, health status, and credit history. Subjects were also asked if they had previously sought care at the county hospital and, if they had, how satisfied they were with the quality of care and with the wait time. Seventy two percent of the subjects reported household incomes of <$20,000, 48% reported they were in fair or poor health, and 33% said they were unable to pay at least one medical bill at the site where they were seeking care. 65% reported they had previously received care at the county hospital, and of these 61% said they were not-too-likely or not-at-all likely to return. In a regression analysis, experience with wait time correlated with subjects willingness to return, whereas their satisfaction with quality, their income, problems with debt, and reported health status did not. Access involves more than geographic proximity and affordability. Excessive wait times can deter even patients who are poor, in ill health and in debt from making use of services that are intended for their benefit.

Rationing access to care to the medically uninsured: the role of bureaucratic front-line discretion at large healthcare institutions.

BACKGROUND: Medically uninsured patients seeking nonemergency care are not guaranteed access to services at most healthcare institutions. They must first register with a clerk who could require a deposit and/or payment on an outstanding debt. OBJECTIVES: This study examines the factors that influence whether nonmedical bureaucratic staff sign in or turn away uninsured patients who cannot meet prepayment requirements. RESEARCH DESIGN: The study was conducted at a for-profit, a not-for-profit, and a public healthcare institution in a metropolitan area. The authors explored the relevant policy environment through interviews with senior administrators and a review of documents pertaining to the management of self-pay patients. Then they examined how policies affecting access were implemented through in-depth, semistructured, audiotaped interviews with 55 front-line clerical personnel. RESULTS: At all 3 institutions, policies were ambiguous about what to do when uninsured patients cannot afford required prepayments. Seventy-one percent of staff reported they do not turn patients away; the remainder stated that on occasion they do. A variety of rationales were provided for how decisions are made. Those with the lowest-level positions were significantly more likely to be sympathetic to indigent patients and less likely to report turning patients away. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with other studies of front-line bureaucracies indicating that low-level personnel who interface with clients make discretionary decisions, particularly when organizations pursue potentially conflicting priorities, this preliminary investigation found that nonmedical personnel play a significant role in decisions affecting access to care for medically indigent patients.